A Texas police officer returning home from work walked into the wrong apartment and shot the occupant dead, believing it was her own place.

The officer called dispatch to report that she had shot the man Thursday night, Dallas police said.

She told responding officers she believed the victim's apartment was her own when she entered it.

The responding officers administered first aid to the victim, whom the Dallas County medical examiner's office identified as 26-year-old Botham Jean, a native of the Caribbean island country of St Lucia who attended college in Arkansas and worked for accounting and consulting firm PwC.

Mr Jean, who was black, was taken to a hospital and pronounced dead.

Police haven't released the name or race of the officer, who arrived home in-uniform and wasn't injured. She will be placed on administrative leave pending the outcome of the investigation, police said.

Authorities haven't said how the officer got into Mr Jean's home, or whether his door was open or unlocked. The apartment complex is just a few blocks from Dallas' police headquarters.

At a Friday morning news conference, Sgt Warren Mitchell acknowledged there are many questions about what happened that he couldn't answer.

"We still have a lot to do in this investigation. So there's a lot of information I understand you guys want but this is all we can give you at this time," Mitchell said.

When asked if anyone else had witnessed the shooting, Warren replied, "We have not spoken to anyone else at this time."

APTN / Newshub.

So now they are breaking into private homes and killing innocent residents?

And why won't the Dallas Police release the name of the cop? (Authorities identify the cop as female, tho they won't identify by name) They release names in every other criminal report. What are the they trying to cover up?

Why did they wait for the responding police to administer first aid? If the killer was a proper policeman, as alleged, why did the cop let the guy die? Why no immediate first aid? Did she know the guy? Did she want him dead? Smells like rotten fish in Texas.

Thor wrote:Toles posted the videos to his Facebook page and they've been viewed almost 8 million times. He wrote that the videos show what it's like "to be a black man in America" and "this is America in 2018."

Thor wrote:Toles posted the videos to his Facebook page and they've been viewed almost 8 million times. He wrote that the videos show what it's like "to be a black man in America" and "this is America in 2018."

He posted on October the 13th Rags with this view to the video and its still there. He was at one point banned during this, where he says this was lifted by the 18th October. He had a spat another African American woman

To Be A Black man in America, & Come home,Women tries to stop me from coming into my building because she feels insecure,Downtown St. Louis luxury loft, because she don’t feel that I belong, never really thought this would happen to me, but it did!Then 30 mins later police knock on my door, because she called! I was shocked this is America in 2018!Please share share NewsRadio 1120 KMOXFox2NowReal Stl News

Raggamuffin wrote:Page not found. However, the fact that he recorded it and put it on Facebook does suggest that he was playing the race card.

Agreed, espcially as he calls a woman insecure, over the security of the building she lives in

The reality is security firms, constantly warn people over the real problem of criminals who gain entry, through someone leaving the building.

He should be well aware of that and like I say, should have put her mind at rest, by showing he had a security fob to enter the building. In fact he made it far worse to being as obstructive as possible.

Seems he wants to be in the limelight, with no due care of the consequences of his actions

Raggamuffin wrote:Page not found. However, the fact that he recorded it and put it on Facebook does suggest that he was playing the race card.

Agreed, espcially as he calls a woman insecure, over the security of the building she lives in

The reality is security firms, constantly warn people over the real problem of criminals who gain entry, through someone leaving the building.

He should be well aware of that and like I say, should have put her mind at rest, by showing he had a security fob to enter the building. In fact he made it far worse to being as obstructive as possible.

Seems he wants to be in the limelight, with no due care of the consequences of his actions

I actually agree with you. It's all very well for people to say it's none of her business but I know people who live in secure flats, and they make sure that the main door is always locked.

There's no indication that it was because she's white and he's black. She thought he didn't live there because he had no fob for the front door.

Wait, what?

The Dallas Morning News wrote:Dallas police obtain a search warrant for Jean's apartment. The warrant states Guyger went to the apartment and was confronted at the door by an unknown male who she may have thought was an intruder. A neighbor said he heard an exchange of words immediately followed by two gunshots.

I doubt they had time to talk about key fobs.

I'm referring to the video to which I replied.

I’m must admit, i did think you were talking about the video you watched rather than the topic matter.

_________________“Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted”― Ralph Waldo Emerson

I’m must admit, i did think you were talking about the video you watched rather than the topic matter.

Having bounced up the thread, I was aware of both topics. So I knew what's up with Ragg's comments immediately. Ben lives in the Dallis/FW area, so quite naturally he was thinking the Guyger case.

Anyway, I'm much more interested in the Guyger murder, as charged. It gets a lot more interesting now that we know there is some back-story (you don't just gun down a man without a reason). I'll be posting any updates as they arise. Her original story is obviously false, but what was the real story? I'm anxious to hear.

Having bounced up the thread, I was aware of both topics. So I knew what's up with Ragg's comments immediately. Ben lives in the Dallis/FW area, so quite naturally he was thinking the Guyger case.

Anyway, I'm much more interested in the Guyger murder, as charged. It gets a lot more interesting now that we know there is some back-story (you don't just gun down a man without a reason). I'll be posting any updates as they arise. Her original story is obviously false, but what was the real story? I'm anxious to hear.

Having bounced up the thread, I was aware of both topics. So I knew what's up with Ragg's comments immediately. Ben lives in the Dallis/FW area, so quite naturally he was thinking the Guyger case.

Anyway, I'm much more interested in the Guyger murder, as charged. It gets a lot more interesting now that we know there is some back-story (you don't just gun down a man without a reason). I'll be posting any updates as they arise. Her original story is obviously false, but what was the real story? I'm anxious to hear.

It's not my fault that Ben wasn't following the thread properly.

It's nobody's fault. Ben was picking up the conversation where I left it. Quite naturally, his head was in the original story.

It's nobody's fault. Ben was picking up the conversation where I left it. Quite naturally, his head was in the original story.

You were the one who detoured.

Wrong

Jules posted the video to the more recent event at the apartment

Syl replied to the video

Rags replied to Syl

Ben jumped in and replied to Rags, based on the previous thread story

Which made zero sense to Rags reply to Syl

Rags did not detour, but simple replied to posters. Where the thread had branched out into two stories by those posters. With the view, that they were similar. Yet as seen they were as far removed as could possible be the stories.

It's nobody's fault. Ben was picking up the conversation where I left it. Quite naturally, his head was in the original story.

You were the one who detoured.

Wrong

Jules posted the video to the more recent event at the apartment

Syl replied to the video

Rags replied to Syl

Ben jumped in and replied to Rags, based on the previous thread story

Which made zero sense to Rags reply to Syl

Rags did not detour, but simple replied to posters. Where the thread had branched out into two stories by those posters. With the view, that they were similar. Yet as seen they were as far removed as could possible be the stories.

The thread was dead until I brought it back. I know what was on it. Check the dates.

Jules had left an invite back in September, and I used it to graft the recent news.

It's nobody's fault. Ben was picking up the conversation where I left it. Quite naturally, his head was in the original story.

You were the one who detoured.

No I wasn't, Jules was. Now it's your fault for telling porkies.

That was back in September. All bets are off til this weekend.

But yes, the Hallway Hilary story was brought in for comparison in September. But I revived this thread, for the express purpose of news about Officer Guyger. Once I did, posters picked up, some on one story, some on the other. You detoured from my pick-up, is all I'm saying.

But, no matter. I don't mind whatever y'all want to talk about. I was just explaining to Ben the course of events. We can move on.

But yes, the Hallway Hilary story was brought in for comparison in September. But I revived this thread, for the express purpose of news about Officer Guyger. Once I did, posters picked up, some on one story, some on the other. You detoured from my pick-up, is all I'm saying.

But, no matter. I don't mind whatever y'all want to talk about. I was just explaining to Ben the course of events. We can move on.

But yes, the Hallway Hilary story was brought in for comparison in September. But I revived this thread, for the express purpose of news about Officer Guyger. Once I did, posters picked up, some on one story, some on the other. You detoured from my pick-up, is all I'm saying.

But, no matter. I don't mind whatever y'all want to talk about. I was just explaining to Ben the course of events. We can move on.

You should have told Ben that he was confused, not me.

Awww...now you want revenge. No, you were the one who detoured back to the Hallway Hilary story. Ben and I were on the same page.

Awww...now you want revenge. No, you were the one who detoured back to the Hallway Hilary story. Ben and I were on the same page.

I'm not having that. You also posted about Hallway Hilary. However, if you didn't like Jules' post you should have said so. I was perfectly free to reply to the issue of Hallway Hilary, and it was Ben who got confused, even though I quoted Syl's post, which was clearly about Hallway Hilary.

Anyway, there's nothing to indicate that this was an accident. It's a bit like the Pistorius situation really. If she really thought it was her apartment, she could had pointed the gun at him and asked him what he was doing there. He would have said he lived there, and a cursory glance around would have told her that she was in the wrong apartment. It sounds extremely reckless to just shoot someone.

Awww...now you want revenge. No, you were the one who detoured back to the Hallway Hilary story. Ben and I were on the same page.

I'm not having that. You also posted about Hallway Hilary. However, if you didn't like Jules' post you should have said so. I was perfectly free to reply to the issue of Hallway Hilary, and it was Ben who got confused, even though I quoted Syl's post, which was clearly about Hallway Hilary.

I appreciated Jules' post. It gave me a segue by which to pick up the Guyger story. I believe I thanked her, and if I didn't, I thank her now.

BTW...Amber Guyger is losing it:

NEWSONE wrote:Amber Guyger Is Blaming Botham Jean For Getting Shot And Killed In His Own Home

The cop's story gets messier by the hour.

Written By NewsOne StaffSeptember 10, 2018

Amber Guyger, 30, who has been a police officer for 4 years, entered Jean’s apartment, first claiming she thought it was her own home before she started shooting. Now she has claimed she gave Jean commands and he didn’t listen, The Associated Press reported.

“David Armstrong of the Texas Rangers wrote in an arrest affidavit released Monday that Officer Amber Guyger said it was nearly completely dark inside the apartment when she entered it Thursday night and she thought she was encountering a burglar in her home,” the AP wrote. “He says Guyger said the person ignored her verbal commands and she fired twice. One struck Jean in the chest and he later died.”

So basically, Guyger is pointing the finger at the dead man for ignoring her “verbal commands”? If it was “nearly completely dark,” then Jean, who was unarmed, may not have been able to see she was a police officer. Even if he could, where was Guyger’s deescalation techniques? Moreover, the AP reported Jean’s door was slightly ajar, contrasting with earlier reports that the door was locked.

But it gets even worse…

Guyger has also claimed she saw “a large silhouette,” the Dallas News reported, which to her apparently meant it was time to start shooting. In addition, Guyger framing it as if she just saw a “silhouette” will be her excuse to pretend she did not know she was shooting a Black man, which will almost certainly be used as an excuse at a trial if the case progresses past the grand jury.

Guyger will also probably be framed as an overworked police officer who just made a tragic mistake — therefore, there should be no punishment. She has reportedly already hired a public relations firm to spin that narrative.

Last edited by Original Quill on Wed Dec 05, 2018 7:00 pm; edited 1 time in total

Quill, you said I was confused. I was not confused, I knew perfectly well that two incidents were being discussed, and I chose to comment on one of them. You were in the wrong, and all you had to do was say sorry.

Raggamuffin wrote:Quill, you said I was confused. I was not confused, I knew perfectly well that two incidents were being discussed, and I chose to comment on one of them. You were in the wrong, and all you had to do was say sorry.

What do you think about Amber's many curves and switchbacks in her story?

Raggamuffin wrote:Quill, you said I was confused. I was not confused, I knew perfectly well that two incidents were being discussed, and I chose to comment on one of them. You were in the wrong, and all you had to do was say sorry.

What do you think about Amber's many curves and switchbacks in her story?

I see no reason to disbelieve her story. The problem is that she meant to kill the chap, or at seriously injure him - hence the murder charge. On the other hand, the defence will say that she acted in good faith, given the circumstances of her thinking it was her apartment. The issue is what she said to him, how much time she waited for him to respond, and what she believed he was going to do.

This can't end with a slap on the wrist. A man is dead because of her, and he shouldn't be dead.

Raggamuffin wrote:I see no reason to disbelieve her story. The problem is that she meant to kill the chap, or at seriously injure him - hence the murder charge. On the other hand, the defence will say that she acted in good faith, given the circumstances of her thinking it was her apartment. The issue is what she said to him, how much time she waited for him to respond, and what she believed he was going to do.

This can't end with a slap on the wrist. A man is dead because of her, and he shouldn't be dead.

Which story would that be?

If we are summing up, it's not only that she intended to kill from the start, but the 'mistake' defense absolutely doesn't work. Wrong floor? Wrong doormat? Wrong guy...or any guy? Then there are the changes in story. Door locked/door open? Empty apartment? Who was she talking to before shooting? With talking...there also goes the element of surprise. Now we have a cop, well trained in reasonable use of force, spraying bullets all over the place??

She would be a disaster as a client to represent, but I would love to have the case as a prosecutor. She would be great fun to cross-examine: you forgot where your home is, have you ever forgotten your way to work?

Raggamuffin wrote:I see no reason to disbelieve her story. The problem is that she meant to kill the chap, or at seriously injure him - hence the murder charge. On the other hand, the defence will say that she acted in good faith, given the circumstances of her thinking it was her apartment. The issue is what she said to him, how much time she waited for him to respond, and what she believed he was going to do.

This can't end with a slap on the wrist. A man is dead because of her, and he shouldn't be dead.

Which story would that be?

If we are summing up, it's not only that she intended to kill from the start, but the 'mistake' defense absolutely doesn't work. Wrong floor? Wrong doormat? Wrong guy...or any guy? Then there are the changes in story. Door locked/door open? Empty apartment? Who was she talking to before shooting? With talking...there also goes the element of surprise. Now we have a cop, well trained in reasonable use of force, spraying bullets all over the place??

She would be a disaster as a client to represent, but I would love to have the case as a prosecutor. She would be great fun to cross-examine: you forgot where your home is, have you ever forgotten your way to work?

Well, obviously lots will come out in the trial that we don't know yet, but here's the problem.

If they can't absolutely prove she went in there and didn't just react poorly, but seriously murdered him, she could walk.

I think murder is a risky charge, to be fair. I certainly hope that grand jury heard convincing evidence and didn't simply cave to public pressure.

_________________“As man advances in civilization, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races.”

Ben wrote:If they can't absolutely prove she went in there and didn't just react poorly, but seriously murdered him, she could walk.

Or not. It's an inferential case. No witnesses. No video tape. No direct evidence. So was the case against Scott Peterson. Juries have a long history of accepting this kind of case...it's their job.

Ben wrote:I think murder is a risky charge, to be fair. I certainly hope that grand jury heard convincing evidence and didn't simply cave to public pressure.

The problem is, there is less evidence and more holes it the story going to a manslaughter charge. Too many open questions. Remember, a defense lawyer will be there for that one too.

As I've said, it's a inferential case. A part of the inference will be too many unanswered questions for it not to be murder. Is a jury going to believe she’s dumb? Careless? Tired and overworked? The jury will want to know why she acted so stupidly...if it was stupidity, and not intentional. The lesser-included crime may not fit the evidence. Sometimes, because of the implausibility of the defense story, you have a better shot at selling a jury on the more severe crime.

Raggamuffin wrote:I see no reason to disbelieve her story. The problem is that she meant to kill the chap, or at seriously injure him - hence the murder charge. On the other hand, the defence will say that she acted in good faith, given the circumstances of her thinking it was her apartment. The issue is what she said to him, how much time she waited for him to respond, and what she believed he was going to do.

This can't end with a slap on the wrist. A man is dead because of her, and he shouldn't be dead.

Which story would that be?

If we are summing up, it's not only that she intended to kill from the start, but the 'mistake' defense absolutely doesn't work. Wrong floor? Wrong doormat? Wrong guy...or any guy? Then there are the changes in story. Door locked/door open? Empty apartment? Who was she talking to before shooting? With talking...there also goes the element of surprise. Now we have a cop, well trained in reasonable use of force, spraying bullets all over the place??

She would be a disaster as a client to represent, but I would love to have the case as a prosecutor. She would be great fun to cross-examine: you forgot where your home is, have you ever forgotten your way to work?

Are you suggesting that she knew the guy, that she went there to kill him, and then concocted this story about the wrong apartment? Do you have a theory as to motive?

If we are summing up, it's not only that she intended to kill from the start, but the 'mistake' defense absolutely doesn't work. Wrong floor? Wrong doormat? Wrong guy...or any guy? Then there are the changes in story. Door locked/door open? Empty apartment? Who was she talking to before shooting? With talking...there also goes the element of surprise. Now we have a cop, well trained in reasonable use of force, spraying bullets all over the place??

She would be a disaster as a client to represent, but I would love to have the case as a prosecutor. She would be great fun to cross-examine: you forgot where your home is, have you ever forgotten your way to work?

Well, obviously lots will come out in the trial that we don't know yet, but here's the problem.

If they can't absolutely prove she went in there and didn't just react poorly, but seriously murdered him, she could walk.

I think murder is a risky charge, to be fair. I certainly hope that grand jury heard convincing evidence and didn't simply cave to public pressure.

At the trial the jury might be given alternatives, so it wouldn't be either murder or acquittal.

If we are summing up, it's not only that she intended to kill from the start, but the 'mistake' defense absolutely doesn't work. Wrong floor? Wrong doormat? Wrong guy...or any guy? Then there are the changes in story. Door locked/door open? Empty apartment? Who was she talking to before shooting? With talking...there also goes the element of surprise. Now we have a cop, well trained in reasonable use of force, spraying bullets all over the place??

She would be a disaster as a client to represent, but I would love to have the case as a prosecutor. She would be great fun to cross-examine: you forgot where your home is, have you ever forgotten your way to work?

Are you suggesting that she knew the guy, that she went there to kill him, and then concocted this story about the wrong apartment? Do you have a theory as to motive?

That's one very strong theory. And it fits better than the story she's telling...that's the point. Actually, for me, it feel like it was a hit...but we needn't go that far.

I don't believe in chance or coincidence. So, what was she doing there? Her claim that she was mistaken and went to the wrong apartment is just too ridiculous, especially when the murder is so purposeful...so without question or hesitation. She appears to have been behaving with intent, as if she had a mission. Plus, the place didn't even look the same...a red doormat on the floor? For a reasonable person to buy her story, those questions must be answered.

That's what I mean about too many holes in her story. When you get too many unanswered questions, too many contradictions, the existence of those questions in themselves become evidence that the jury is going to consider. It's like asking people to believe in Mary Poppins or Peter Pan...um, what about gravity? You can only stretch the never-never land of mistake or forgetfulness so far.